Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: jory2 Date: May 1, 2013 10:40am
Forum: web Subject: Re: Concerned that my blog has been added to your archive

Peter Frouman'

"However, the Internet Archive crawler software (Heritrix) does indeed honor it by default. If you doubt the official statements of IA on this, you can easily verify it by running the software yourself or examining its source code."

Actually this link:

is much more useful.

"Unless you're just trolling (which seems quite likely)"

Ah! I wondered how long it would take before you pulled that lame ass shit! You guys need new material!

So for the record, Trolling I don't know, Copyright / Intellectual Property I know well.

"I'm baffled as to why you seem to think that the official IA policy statements about the behaviour of their crawler are unreliable"

Check your facts, the IA tells you themselves that their software is not 100% reliable. Do you need direction to the exact page where you (and everyone else) can verify this info?
It's within the IA blog.

"but the statements of random individual users editing a wiki for a completely separate project (that has apparently contributed volunteer time to IA projects) is somehow more reliable."

And again you fail and fail miserably with that attempt too! Here's a direct quote from the IA blog:

"The prolific volunteers of Archive Team spent a lot of time this year archiving web sites on the verge of disappearing and then contributing those records to Internet Archive."

"Using the Robot Exclusion Standard is currently the most efficient and reliable method for publishers to communicate their preferences regarding the indexing and archiving of content they publish. Posting random complaints on a forum is much less likely to have the desired result."

Like many, I would argue the law is the "most efficient and reliable method for publishers to communicate their preferences regarding the indexing and archiving of content they publish.".

"DMCA notices can indeed be a useful tool to request removal of actual infringements. However, submitting DMCA notices with false statements to request the removal of non-infringing content is very risky"

Fail and fails again; no where did I mention "submitting DMCA notices with false statements" because it can indeed result in civil liability.

"I would suggest that anyone considering filing a DMCA notice get legal counsel from a licensed attorney with expertise in U.S. intellectual property law. Getting help from some random anonymous and completely unqualified person to draft a DMCA notice could turn out to be a very expensive mistake."

I bet you would! Who care? Who are you? And do you really think people are not going to read for themselves?, and just take your word for it?, wonderful step-by-step instructions! Helpful with counter-notices as well!
Created by the EFF and Google if I'm not mistaken?

"It should also be noted that recipients of DMCA notices have no legal obligation to respond to them or take any action (including removal) in response to them. They merely have the option to do so to possibly avoid potential liability but if there is no infringement, there is no liability (except possibly for legal expenses that can't be collected from the losing party)."

Now I know without doubt that you have no idea what the f@$K you're taking about!, which is the only reason I added to this messy thread in the first place; you're 100% wrong on so many key points it's unbelievable!

People will, and can read for themselves, all the information is freely available for anyone interested.

Peter Frouman you are either clueless, or completely confused by the information you're reading; which is entirely possible, its one thing to read Bills/Acts/Laws ... but if you're not comprehending.

In any case, it's been interesting.